11 posts tagged “arts & design”
Paula Scher，當代最著名的平面設計師之一，作品一出每每大幅影響設計界的走向。曾經替the New York City Ballet、紐約公共戲院、紐約時代雜誌、美國自然歷史博物館等合作設計出著名作品，她的作品在台灣也不算陌生，例如匯豐銀行有著紅傘蓋兒的logo即出自她在餐巾紙上的隨筆。
我最近在作報告時看到一篇Paula Scher的訪談逐字稿和她在Ted.com的演講影片，內容是她分享對於設計的看法與屢屢遭遇失敗時的態度。她說，雖然她的專長在於平面設計，但是她假設這樣的觀點和哲學可以應用在其他的科學上。而我看了之後頗有啟發，所以就把文字稿和演講轉錄過來分享了J
(訪談逐字稿和演講影片雖有部分重疊，但內容不盡相同，Paula Scher在訪談中比較多著重於對於失敗的看法，而影片只約二十分鐘，可以一睹Paula Scher本人風采和作品概覽，置於訪談稿後。)
Paula Scher on Failure
By Jay Dixit on May 21, 2009 - 10:01am in Brainstorm
來源: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200905/paula-scher-failure
Paula Scher is one of the world's most famous graphic designers, known for creating Citibank's umbrella logo as well as for design work for The Public Theater, The New York Times Magazine, the American Museum of Natural History, The New York City Ballet, and Herman Miller. She believes failure is the secret to artistic success. "You have to fail in order to make the next discovery," says Scher. "It's through mistakes that you actually can grow."
You have a whole philosophy about recovering from failure—how you can learn from failure and how it can actually help you. You've spoken about how failures and mistakes in your own work led to your current level of success and allowed you to be creative.
There are two different ways this thing works. I did a TED talk about the difference between serious work and solemn work. I define serious work as being where you make breakthroughs, and solemn work as doing the status quo and the level may be very good but it's not breakthrough.
There's another factor—and I'm talking about this as a designer, but I imagine it would work in any form of the arts and to science. When you're working and you make mistakes, particularly when you're young, you make discoveries because you do things that are inappropriate and wrongheaded, but within the wrongheadedness you find an unexpected way to go. These things are truly the breakthroughs.
When you're fulfilling a function—when you're being obedient, in other words, you're doing as expected—you can't learn anything. Because you already know the answer. It's through mistakes that you actually can grow.
You have to get bad in order to get good. You have to try a lot of things and fail in order to make the next discovery.
That works in a short-term methodology when you're just working on a specific project, but also long-term in terms of a whole career. I find I make big discoveries and I make huge leaps and then I repeat myself and I'll be known for what I did—I'll get the acclaim for the breakthrough—and that elevates everyone's expectation of who I am and what I'm supposed to do, and I will repeat that because it has become successful.
And I will repeat it and repeat it until it provokes my utter failure because I'm going along doing exactly what I did. And it's very hard to make the breakthrough because in order to make the breakthrough again, to go up again, you either have to fail or be unqualified for a job where you don't know what you're doing, where you make honest mistakes because that's how you learn. And that success is its own guarantee of failure.
So you're saying that one of the ways that you experience failure is: Let's say you make a breakthrough and you're rewarded for it—by people praising it—and you repeat that same formula that worked for you and it gets stale after a while, and eventually that lack of innovation becomes regarded as a failure?
That's right. In my TED talk, there's actually a little cycle about it. It's first being serious—that's how you make the breakthrough—then being solemn (that's when the breakthrough is expected), then being trite or hackneyed, and then being forgotten and then getting resurrected again. You go through that entire cycle, and the failure leads to the next reinvention—as long as you understand what's happening to you. Some people grasp on some to try to repeat the old success. They feel, "Well, oh, I'm just not doing the old thing I did well," and in fact you have to let go of that for a while and free fall and find the next thing.
What do you do in order to understand what's happening to you and try not to grasp on to the old success?
That's the "aha" part of it. The really hard part is to let go of yourself. You have to have the self-awareness that it's happening, and you can't be defensive and protect yourself. Like I find, the minute I see young kids doing something I really, really hate, I know I have to pay attention to them. Because I realize I really, really hate it because I'm defending myself.
Can you give an example of that?
I've been through so many styles and trends that have been like that. That's your first reaction when you see something new that you aren't part of. It's a generational shift. I'm 60, I've been through this a lot. You never can do what the kids do. What you do is look at yourself and find your own way to address the fact that the times have changed and that you have to pay attention. You can't be a designer and say, "Oh, this is timeless." Nothing is timeless! Times change. The minute you say, "This is some fashion phase, I'm going to ignore this, because my work is timeless," pay attention—you're fooling yourself! What young designers do is they rebel against what came before them—meaning they're rebelling against you. That's what allows them to discover the next thing.
They need that to propel them forward. So when they rebel and they rebel against you, that hurts your feelings. You feel threatened by it. When you feel threatened by it, you tend to denounce it. "Oh, these young kids today, they're doing this terrible crap yada yada." How many times have we heard that? What you're doing is you're not paying attention. You're defending yourself. If you can embrace it and you can look at it and find the value in it and why it is here, then you can grow yourself, and you're much stronger that way.
There's another kind of failure. Once you realize the thing you got rewarded for has become stale and that you need to try something new—when you're trying to innovate, I suppose you make mistakes then too?
Then you really don't know what you're doing, so you make some really terrible things. And you have to have the luxury and the time to do that, and it's hard when you're a working professional to be able to fail like that. But there's nothing better for you than to make some big ugly terrible thing that's just a disaster.
The thing about your mistakes is, when everybody praises something, you don't learn anything. But when you do something terrible, you know what not to do. And that's fantastic. You also learn what you could do if you manipulated it a different way. You have to try these things. You have to see where the failure takes you. That's very scary and risky and also hard to do while you're trying to do something professional. So you have to set aside some personal R&D to make the failure.
Is that what you did, or were you lucky to be in a field where you could fail in your actual work?
When I was young I had this job working in the record business. I was an art director for CBS records and I used to make about 150 records covers a year. About 80 percent of them were terrible. And that was how I learned to be a designer. I was very lucky. Because most kids don't have the option to really fail like that.
That's where I learned the value of the failure. Now, as a working professional and a partner of Pentagram with a reputation to uphold, I'm probably less likely to make outrageously ugly things. But the downside of that is that the work becomes expected, so I have to make changes on my own. So I began painting as a way to balance and be able to make other discoveries, and I made these very complicated map paintings and they started selling. The success hurt the expression. So I have to go back to R&D and develop some other ways of pushing that.
Do you think it takes a particular type of personality to be able to do that, to be able to take down your defenses and be OK with failure? What do you think it is about your personality that allows you to do that?
This is hard, because it gets very personal. Maybe I had less to protect. Some of it came from being a woman, in that the expectation was that I wasn't going to do much anyway, so what the hell?
I find that men are much less likely to talk about this stuff. Unless they're so über-successful that they put themselves out as gurus. It's the idea that failure is not embarrassing to me. What's embarrassing to me is the idea of failing and not knowing. Do you know that Randy Newman song, "I'm Dead and I Don't Know It"?
No.
The whole song is about this. It's on his Bad Love album. The refrain is, "Each record that I'm making is like a record that I made, just not as good." Then he says, "Why do I go on and on and on and on?"
I'll check that out.
It's exactly what we're talking about here. It's this perfect little song.
So is it that failing isn't embarrassing to you or is it that you don't mind being embarrassed?
It's not that failure is not embarrassing to me. It's that I don't have a high enough opinion of myself to have to masquerade as a success.
Has that become more difficult as you've become more successful?
Yes. Because I have more to lose. And I'm afraid of being a fool. All that stuff is real. But, it is the thing that kills the work. Every criticism, anything I hear anybody say about my work (and I hear it all online now), it hurts my feelings—don't get me wrong. But I know the failure is valuable and I have pay attention to it and when I stop paying attention to it I'm really in serious trouble.
Do you try to shield yourself against reviews or do you seek them out to try to get more feedback?
I do both. There is a point where, if I read things about my work on a blog or some such thing, there's always certain amount of value to it and there's a certain amount of snark and mean. So I have to be able to know the difference. But I know that what's problematic is that at a certain point when you've established—and lets face it, I'm just a graphic designer, there is no great thing here—but when you establish a certain level of success within your field, you're a walking target. Because other people assume everything is easy for you, or that you don't have to work as hard, or that you're getting away with something. And yet, that becomes something you have to be acutely aware of so you're not frivolous, so you continue to take the risks and prove yourself, not relying on your fame. You have to pay attention.
Do you think other people understand this process? That in order to be successful and innovative and creative you need failures? Or do you think when people see something that doesn't work, its just, "Ha ha, she failed, she's losing it, she doesn't have it anymore"?
I think that's always the wish, that's always their hope. They would hope that. And that's why I have to pay attention to the failure.
So critics don't understand the value of failure to continued creativity? They see one failure and they go, "Oh, that sucks"?
No, I don't think that's quite right. There's all different sorts of criticism. If someone is going to write about a long career critically, of course they know the value in failure; they know that one doesn't just keep moving along. They'll obviously understand that you can't have a steady stream of successes, there are always those peaks and valleys. If a critic is looking just at once piece, something in an immediate time, then people don't won't see the value in failure. Or they're just being critical because they're judging the piece itself, which is valuable to me.
When you're in the midst of failure, are you always able to keep the long view and remember that a failure is going to lead you to greater successes later? Or do you ever feel discouraged and hopeless?
I talk about the conditions for making discovery. The first condition is that you're young and arrogant, and you can't do that later because then you know too much. That's one way you begin to grow. I make an analogy to The Verdict, a movie with Paul Newman. He plays this down-and-out lawyer who was almost disbarred because he did something shameful in his past. He's given this case, and it's a malpractice case. The client is morally right. There's all these reasons he can't win the case. Finally he gets to the point. And he says, "This is the case. There are no other cases." This is the moment. And at that point you know he can win the thing, because the focus is so strong, the determination is there, and the opportunity is there. The ball being pitched, he's got to hit it out of the ballpark. You are in a state of desperation, and there can be that focus. And that's another way to change. A third way to change is to accidentally, or even by your own manipulation, put yourself into a situation or a product where you're a complete and total neophyte. Then you're operating on an instinctive level and you can make discovery that way. The last way to do it—and I'm looking for a new way, I've done this many times—is to be so bored so senseless by what you're been doing repetitively that it forces you to strike out in a new way.
What advice do you have for people?
If you find yourself defending yourself and protecting yourself and being outraged about what's around you, you're in trouble. That doesn't mean some things aren't genuinely outrageous. But you have to ask yourself: Why are you outraged by something? What are you hiding from? What are you defending?
Was there ever a particularly public failure? Any dramatic moments?
People need to understand is the difference between failure and bad luck. Bad luck is something else—sometimes you lose your job, sometimes you're in the middle of a project and it gets canceled, sometimes you have a client who's impossible. That's just bad luck. Failure is when you have the ability to fix it. It's important to know the difference. It's like that Al Anon prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." There's no point in beating yourself up over bad luck, in trying to manipulate something you can't change. There are people who fall into a downward cycle and blame themselves for things they really have control over.
But for true failure, you should let it beat you up a little bit?
You should pay attention to it, and change the things you can. Ask yourself, why is this not working? Why is my work coming out like this? Why do I do the same thing over and over again?
(影片)
Paula Scher: Great design is serious not solemn
阿瑪迪斯Amadeus 1984 / 美國 / 彩色 / 158m 導演: Milos Forman 演員: F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Jeffrey Jones
探求天才的奧秘：莫札特 ISBN: 9570828544 作者: Norbert Elias 出版: 聯經 出版日: 94/05/01
「這種才華是很明顯的嗎?是寫在臉上的嗎?」薩列里(Salieri, Antonio)第一次嘗試辨認出莫札特(Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart)時所發出的疑問，也正是許多人對於天才共同的想像。迷人、雄偉，眉宇之間帶點自信的神氣，或是古怪、孤僻，無法被理解並與人正常來往，這兩種極端往往是天才被辨認的特質，然而莫札特所留下的照片，卻是一位鼻子多肉、突出，眼神機靈但藏不了躁動的質地，抿著的嘴摻著一點神經質，－－這樣的一位小夥子。再加上文獻資料的記載，口無遮攔的低級戲謔、與女性親密輕佻的關係和小丑般的滑稽行為，以及電影《阿瑪迪斯》中令人印象深刻、隨時隨地發出的誇張大笑，「這真的是莫札特嗎?」成了高二時第一次看完電影後心中最大的衝擊。
「天才」與「普通人」，伊里亞斯(Norbert Elias)非常驚人而精確地指出:
這種羅曼蒂克的二分法，直到今天所以還被人堅持，其實有一個相當明顯的理由，也就是說，它其實反映了一再重新出現的、至今的發展階段仍尚未完全克服的問題:一個文明化的人如何克服其動物性?在這種情況下，天才理想化的形象，被當成是每一個人以其精神面對抗肉體面時的武裝力量的結盟者。在此，人們移轉了他的戰場，如此便產生了二分法(在這二分法裡，天才的祕密及其非天才的人性，被擺在不同的領域裡呈現出來)。
－－Norbert Elias《探求天才的奧秘:莫札特》頁70
而這樣概化的分類和隨之而來的期待若強置於任何一個人身上都是非常殘忍的，不僅詭異地切割劃開了創作者和創作之間的關聯，沒有視創作為創作者的精心耗神的產物，作為自我的一種延伸、再現與融合的複雜有機體，更抹滅了創作者的主體性，掩蓋掉創作者做為人的種種，包括其人格的多面向，各種有聲無聲的想望，缺陷，對愛的需求，和寂寞等等。
這種作品之呈現與本身之性格間構成的反差印象，以及對於愛非常渴求的兩大特質，都讓我不斷想起文生(Vincent Willem van Gogh)。
文生的名字讓人想起捕捉光影流洩之美的印象派。不過稍對印象派或文生有稍微進一步了解或認識，而非只在某銀行的廣告和粗製濫造紀念品上辨認的人會糾正這樣的說法，因為精確而言，文生已經轉化莫內(Claude Monet)或赫諾瓦(Pierre-Auguste Renoir) 描繪光影色澤變化的理念，文生的筆觸屬於後印象派。如今，《星夜》、《鳶尾花》、《向日葵》、《夜晚的露天咖啡座》的複製品仍然被印製在許多商品上，被掛在某空間的走廊盡頭；割耳事件、自殺的結局和精神瘋狂的形象也仍然是許多人對文生最主要的印象和皺眉的緣故。不多的人注意到，文生出生的前一年，同一天，他的母親生下一個死產兒。一年後，他的名字便以這個未見天日之嬰的名字為名。沉默孤獨的他年幼時常常田野中漫遊，性格獨立、脾氣暴躁或許讓人容易自以為是地看出他日後偏執的徵兆，不過，成為畫家之前，他就已經是個做事勤奮認真，生活刻苦、規律(似乎和一般對藝術人的想像不同?)的人，然而矛盾的是，他又不守常規，大概是因為懷著不顧一切的狂熱吧。這樣的熱情還可以從另外一件文生時常被忽略掉的生平事蹟看出來:文生非常關懷窮人，終日探訪病人，甚至為了融入煤礦工人的生活、為了替他們包紮傷口、禱告、講解聖經，也跟他們一起住棚屋、睡稻草鋪成的墊子、呼吸汙濁惡臭的空氣、承受礦坑環境的危險。
不過，這些舉止反而被當時的神學院所拒絕。若拉開距離，宏觀地檢視，文生的一生大抵上也就是如此:不斷被拒絕。除了被學校拒絕，愛情相當失敗，獨特的個性讓他很難交到朋友，赤貧的生活也使他跟家人的關係疏遠或不斷起起伏伏，更別說始終賣不出去的畫作－－特別是，那些畫作全是文生無法容忍他人指責的最愛，終日、一生的寄託與投入?「我到底能做什麼有用的事!」文生的潛意識中，想必也拒絕了自己。
對於愛的需求，和自我意義的追尋，欠缺滿足到了一種程度後，終於在與高更(Paul Gauguin)有所磨擦後爆發。但在我看來，這強烈而敏感的需要，已經從幼年開始累積，在經驗的不斷轉化下，一再地被強化，也不斷展現在文生的一生當中。
這些渴望和掙扎是如此的沉默，真實。最後，「他放棄指望，讓自己倒下」－－文生和莫札特，像不同但又互相觀照的兩個生命體，悲悲慘慘黯黯淡淡的離開人世，卻在肉體消融之後，作品被喜愛和傳頌。然而從當時到現在，喜愛那些作品的人中，有多少誠實地在乎過他們和他們的生活?果真如Renoir所說，痛苦會過去，美會留下?
在讀了Norbert Elias《探求天才的奧秘:莫札特》和重複看電影《阿瑪迪斯》幾次後，除了一次比一次感到悲哀的沉重，也倏忽驚喜地感覺到，自己似乎莽莽撞撞地藉著莫札特把文生的輪廓抓得比從前清楚一點，同時透過文生，稍稍體會莫札特，以及，比過去更加厭惡「文人之不幸，是文壇之大幸」的說法－－那像是對著蝴蝶標本忘情地讚嘆死屍之美。
如果想把平凡的他和藝術家的他分開來看待的話，實在是很不恰當。畢竟，熱愛莫札特的藝術，卻不由此對音樂被後的創造者感覺到一點點的愛，是很困難的。
－－Norbert Elias《探求天才的奧秘:莫札特》頁11
Norbert Elias寫下了，令人落淚的理想。
6.17,11.7.2009誌
不是我在說，這次簡便式的電子邀請卡不太好看耶 :p
真正紙本的邀請卡才精美，以每位參展繪本畫家的作品製作，一疊十八張!
想拿到真正的邀請卡嗎?那就找到畫家或親自去現場要吧!X )
＊ 花。花。世。界＊
2009年，圖畫書俱樂部十三年聯展!
展出地點：中國文化大學推廣教育部一樓藝文廊（北市建國南路二段231號）
展出時間：2009.7.18(六)~8.2(日)
現場創作:周六、日14:00~17:00 -->這個應該會很有趣!
主辦單位:財團法人華岡興業基金會
中國文化大學推廣教育部
圖畫書俱樂部
相關資訊請上:picbook.myweb.hinet.net
我老師阿土也有參展喔(雖然我自己應該是到不了><)，歡迎有興趣的朋友們去捧場:D
USA Gradschool about Master of Fine Arts美國設計與藝術研究所留學分享
http://prattflora.com/mfastudy/
"MFAstudy 美國設計與藝術研究所留學分享"這個網站我放在左邊的Links區有一段時間了，不過，我發現當學弟妹或者我的朋友跟我聊藝術學校的事時我常會得到「?」反應(大概是因為不夠顯眼的關係XD)，今天乾脆就來簡單介紹一下這個好網站，對藝術相關科系有興趣的人(特別是以後想在美國念arts的)，快來看喔!:D
這個網站是由Flora(站長阿福)留學後，有感於這條路的辛苦不易，決定把把自己蒐集到的資料做個整理和大家共享!(請點成立原因)從 2000成立到今天已經成為一個內容非常豐富網站，許多留學生、準留學生、對設計有興趣的學生都會在這個網站上以留言的方式和站長也和彼此對談，甚至主動幫忙更新資訊。
那麼，內容有些什麼呢?
首先，是MFA的制度和一些觀念澄清—如果這個沒搞清楚，就離夢想還很遙遠囉。
再來是大重點--各個設計藝術學校資訊!
以美國為範疇，阿福站長列了80個學校...........！！！！（ﾟ Д ﾟ )而且每一個學校都有相當詳細的介紹和連結(對於英文不太好卻又要看校方英文網站的人真是省事很多，特別是美國藝術科系的分法和台灣的常常不太一樣XD)，包括各個主修、風評，以及對於學生來講真是超級重要的學費，其他相關資訊像是附近的租屋狀況、校友會強不強大、需不需要面試還有作品集要求等等，則各學校不一，網友的迴響也不一。
注意，雖然這個網站主要介紹的是”研究所”，然而有大學部的學校也有不少介紹J
第三，作品集準備!
網站上有不少好作品集可以觀摩，也有列出相關的網站、工具資料可以查，不管是要念哪裡的MFA或者是高中職申請藝術設計相關大專院校，都是好幫手!
接著，考托福的人有福了!這個網站搜集了一些有關托福的免費資源和方法，有沒有要念藝術都無妨，需要增強英文別忘了看一看這裡，有整理過的資料J
最後，阿福站長真的是太貼心了，從怎麼樣申請，到真正成了新生時需要什麼樣的準備，會面對到什麼樣的挫折，通通都在這兒!另外有過來人(們)的心情分享，網友對於一些常見問題(如在美國工作等)的討論串，站長也會整理出來。
由於網站很大，而且每過一段時間就會改版，我自己也沒有全部看完，建議有興趣想要逛逛的人先從第一次來?瀏覽一下整個網站的架構，很容易找到所需要的:D
為這個好網站鼓鼓掌吧!
MFASTUDY - USA Gradschool about Master of Fine Arts美國設計與藝術研究所留學分享
(Since 2000.06.14 by Flora from Taiwan)
http://prattflora.com/mfastudy/
2008.11.11誌
昨天我在J他家附近散步時，偶然看到這個信箱，真是太酷了!!
將常用支撐信箱的木柱或金屬柱改換成鐵鍊造型，利用鐵鍊鬆鬆垮垮的一般印象造成重力錯覺!
如果每個鐵環相扣的角度稍微不同，甚至讓整條鍊子大幅度彎曲造型，會有另一番效果，不過那樣一看就知道有人搞鬼，反倒不若這個信箱的設計，只在中央近地處稍稍拉一條弧度，以及整條鍊身小幅度歪斜(點下列圖觀看)，好像真的是一條過長、自然下垂的鐵鍊，令人驚艷!
30.8.2008誌
2008倫敦廣告獎參賽徵件開始報名!
徵件類別:
設計、數位媒體、整合媒體、非大眾傳播媒體、包裝設計類、海報&廣告牌、平面廣告淚、廣播類及電視影片類。
截止日期:2008/6/13
官網:http://www.liaawards.com/
第二十七屆新一代設計展
2008.5.15~18 9:00~17:00
台北世貿一館
官網：http://yodex.boco.com.tw/Default.aspx
好快，沒想到又到了這個時刻，新一代設計展!
想去年這個時候，某一個禮拜五，我在學校，我媽打來，
＂上次我們討論的那個展覽今天開展耶。你要不要去看？＂
我想都沒想就回答，
"好。"
書包簡便一收，拎了就往門外走。
那時地理老師還在台上，所有的同學也都傻眼。
"你去哪!?"
剩沒多久就要指考了，而且印像中好像還逼近最後一次北模(吧?)
不管是教室內還是走廊遇到的，
可想而知，所有的人都掛著讓我很想很想笑的表情問:
"你要做什麼!?公然翹課你要去哪!!!???"
他們得到的回應是:
一貫從容的J式微笑外加:
"看設計展。"
接著目瞪口呆看著我悠閒地背著包包走掉XD
先聲明，那是我跟神認罪改不翹課之前~
請勿學習!
這個展覽是各設計院校一起舉辦的畢業聯展(國內五十所，國外二十所)
去年去看的時候，各個學校都砸錢花心思去籌備，非常精采，
許多設計都令人激賞驚豔，至今還記憶猶深
(畢業展對於學設計的學生是生涯大關鍵，大家都會盡可能得讓自己的好作品亮相)
想當然爾，今年我會去，真期待^~^*
推薦大家不管對設計有多少了解，都可以去逛一逛，絕對眼界大開! 喔耶ˇ
設計概論作業:D
教授規定要找一個簡單的圖案去做4x4種變化，單色，規律排列，做成袋子
--「從呆板創造變化」，因為是基礎練習，所以要求比較死硬一點。
但是，乖乖聽話就不是我啦XD
黑色。基礎色保守，不容易出亂子，因為多數的人都能接受。
但也因為情感中立的緣故，設計品質立現，容易被嚴格討論。
格子裡只有十五隻。
第十六隻…跑出來了:D
十六隻鹿寶貝們我最喜歡這隻。隨手畫時偶然生出來的。
但其實也是犯規，因為變化的有點過頭了XD
總覺得牠在笑：）
袋子的側面。
只是練習用，所以教授說不用作。
但是我想，既然輸出的價錢一樣，
乾脆順便好了ˇ
有點甜但又不會太甜的風格。
甜向來不是我主要路線J
教授看到的時候笑了。
”連©和R都都出來了啊。”
愛玩被發現了，真害羞 一///一
用來當提帶的緞帶有挑過:)
萬華有家專門賣緞帶的店( Crystal Rose Ribbon Store )，
是教會一位弟兄的姐姐的好朋友開的(也是基督徒^^)
乾淨可愛，賣的緞帶種類很多很多
這次用Photoimpact畫。
Photoimpact是小學時自己摸出來的，
但總是不精，有些功能到現在還是不太能完全掌控，
例如一直不會設定解析度。
這造成這次的作業差點得重畫，所幸關鍵時刻TSC關鍵的出手相救(謝謝!!!><)，
以致輸出的圖雖然不夠清晰，有些噴點大小不均勻，
但勉勉強強還過的去，也免了重畫的厄運。
無論如何，用Photoimpact畫是敗筆，找時間要來學學Photoshop。
成本計算：
一才$50，一共四才 4*50=200
緞帶(手提部分)一捲$60(270cm)，用了120 cm 60/270*120=26.67
再加上一些哩哩扣扣有的沒的大概就是$ 250吧。
雖然只是玩票性質，粗糙粗糙，不過還是可以賣的啦，哈哈
有人要買嗎?^~^*
【My deer, My dear】紙袋
NT$ 250
顏色：黑白 / 自訂 (色碼表http://rhinejo.myweb.hinet.net/home/color/color-cord.html )
尺寸：寬20*高34*深12(cm) (高和深可指定)
品牌：Jessica Hsu / J.ACOS
產地：Taiwan
材質：模造紙(未上光)、緞帶
庫存狀況：下訂單即出貨,需三個工作天
(我要摺，而且要小心摺，免得像我第一次摺失敗結果200元飛了T^T)
意者請用mail、簡訊、電話或當面告訴我:D
2008.4.14誌
深厚，
才能極簡。
2008.2.7誌
|
附帶一提,根據他的說法,那裡的蛋糕很好吃!喔這樣眼睛有好看的嘴巴又有好吃的,真好~\(^O^)/ 2008.1.14誌 |
